In the UK and Ireland, the national hunt season is drawing to a close. If you are looking at the seemingly esoteric discipline of horse racing from the United States or elsewhere, you’ll probably consider national hunt (jumps) racing quite niche. To an extent, it is, given the focus – and the majority of the money – around the world is on flat racing. Yet, the popularity of jumps racing in the British Isles matches that of flat racing. Indeed, events like the Cheltenham Festival and Aintree Grand National now outstrip “classic” events like the Epsom Derby and Royal Ascot in terms of viewership and betting volumes.
Yet, in the 2023/24 season, a narrative emerged that poses a universal question for all types of racing. Namely, does it matter if a trainer is too dominant? The reason it has been posed again and again in the British sports media is due to the feats of one man, the Irish trainer
Willie Mullins. Mullins trained the Grand National winner, Cheltenham Gold Cup winner, Champion Hurdle winner, and became the top trainer at the Cheltenham Festival for the 5th time in a row. He surpassed 100 winners at the Festival, too.
Irish dominance has rattled British racing
While Mullins is even more dominant in his native Ireland, his sojourns to Britain to plunder the biggest accolades in jumps racing have caused vexation in the British press. In a sense, it has become an existential one. Irish dominance generally has caused panic in British racing circles, but Mullins is the pin-up boy. The recent Grand National, which is the biggest horse betting event in the UK, comparable to the Kentucky Derby, had Irish-trained horses in the first four places, including Mullins’ winner, I Am Maximus. Total dominance.
However, the only issue with this is that, by and large, racing fans don’t seem to care. Arguably, this is unique to racing. A sense of tribalism can occur in other sports based on geographic location – you don’t find many Yankees fans in South Boston – but does the average racing fan care where a horse has been trained? Most Americans don’t care that a horse has been trained by Todd Pletcher or Bob Baffert; they simply follow the horse for a variety of reasons. Of course, you’ll often cheer on a horse based on the fact you have bet on it, but a combination of factors makes a horse popular, and it is certainly not the horse’s passport.
Winning is never boring
Suppose we look back to 2015 and American Pharaoh, for instance. The horse became a sensation, a popular news story that gripped the nation. His talent and pursuit of greatness for a Grand Slam caught the imagination of the public, even those who do not usually hold much truck with horse racing. Did anyone think of his trainer, Bob Baffert? Of course not. Baffert, with all due respect, was not a universally popular figure, even before his recent legal issues. His talent as a trainer is beyond doubt, and perhaps only he could have led American Pharoah to such heights, but for most fans, it is always the horse’s story that is being told.
Of course, some might argue that having a dominant trainer in horse racing can become boring. You can see the sense in the argument, and it certainly cropped up in Mullins’ record over the British springtime. But there is always a sense among racegoers that they crave the “best outcome,” and that means the best horse winning a race. To say that a trainer’s dominance is boring would be like saying it was boring to watch Usain Bolt constantly break records at the Olympics. For many of us, it is not boring but fascinating.
As we enter the Triple Crown season in the United States, there will, of course, be no question of a trainer’s dominance. The fields are wide open for the Kentucky Derby and the other blue-chip races across the spring, summer, and fall. But if a dominant hero emerges in the mold of American Pharoah, you can be sure that racing fans will not care a jot if the horse trounces the opposition in every race. In sports, including horse racing, winning is never boring.
